Skip to content

phase-grant-proposal

The grant-proposal phase translates a defined research question into a competitive, funder-ready application. It begins with automatic discovery of ideation outputs and ends with a fully drafted, word-counted, reviewer-aligned document saved to .neuroflow/grant-proposal/.

Phase entry checklist

Before drafting anything, verify:

  • Researcher interview complete โ€” answers saved to interview-[funder]-[date].md
  • Objectives written to .neuroflow/objectives.md (one numbered sentence per objective)
  • Ideation output discovered OR research question confirmed with user
  • Funder and scheme identified
  • Page/word limits per section confirmed
  • Review criteria retrieved (from funder website or call document)
  • Deadline confirmed and logged

Never skip the interview. Never draft without confirmed objectives.

Interview protocol

Ask questions one or two at a time โ€” conversational, not a form. Build context progressively.

Required questions: 1. Core research question (offer ideation summary if .neuroflow/ideation/ exists) 2. Funder and scheme (or URL to the call) 3. Budget ceiling and duration 4. Deadline 5. Specific objectives or aims โ€” ask for 3โ€“4 verb-led statements; these are the cornerstones 6. Preliminary data โ€” what exists and how strong is the feasibility case? 7. Novelty โ€” what does this do that current methods don't? 8. Team โ€” PI and co-investigators with roles 9. Constraints โ€” ethics status, required partnerships, pre-committed budget items 10. Previous grants for inspiration โ€” if provided, build an inspiration map

After the interview: - Save to .neuroflow/grant-proposal/interview-[funder]-[date].md - Write objectives to .neuroflow/objectives.md (create or update)

Objectives tracking

Objectives in .neuroflow/objectives.md are cornerstones for the entire grant. Rules:

  1. Re-read objectives.md before drafting every section
  2. For the Approach/Methodology section: verify all N objectives appear explicitly โ€” flag any missing
  3. For the quality checklist: verify all N objectives appear in both Aims AND Methodology
  4. If the user adds or changes an objective mid-session: update objectives.md immediately and note the change in reasoning/grant-proposal.json

Panel research protocol

When the user agrees to panel research:

  1. Ask for the panel listing URL
  2. Fetch the page (WebFetch)
  3. For each panel member found: search their background (WebSearch โ€” 2โ€“3 key papers, primary topics, methodological focus)
  4. Build a panel profile table: | Panel name | Member | Research background | Relevance to project |
  5. Suggest top 2โ€“3 panels with rationale (one sentence each)
  6. Save to .neuroflow/grant-proposal/panels/panel-analysis-[funder]-[date].md
  7. Use the preferred panel's terminology and methodological frame throughout the proposal โ€” reviewers respond to language that mirrors their own thinking

Inspiration map protocol

When the user provides previous grant documents:

  1. Read each document in full
  2. Build a cross-reference table:
| New grant section   | Grant A              | Grant B              |
|---------------------|----------------------|----------------------|
| Specific Aims       | Sec 1 (pp. 1โ€“2)      | Introduction (pp. 1โ€“3)|
| Background          | Lit Review (pp. 3โ€“6) | Background (pp. 2โ€“5) |
| Innovation          | Novelty (p. 7)       | Not present          |
| Approach            | Methods (pp. 8โ€“14)   | Research Plan (pp. 6โ€“12)|
| Budget              | Budget (pp. 15โ€“16)   | Budget narrative (p.13)|
  1. Save to .neuroflow/grant-proposal/inspiration-map-[date].md
  2. Before drafting each section: reference the corresponding inspiration entry โ€” adopt the structural approach and framing style while producing original content
  3. When inspiration sections contain strong language or argument patterns: note them explicitly in the draft as structural guides

Ideation discovery protocol

If ideation files exist (.neuroflow/ideation/*.md):

  1. List all files
  2. Read each and extract: research question, modality, population, preliminary data, key references
  3. Present a 3โ€“5 bullet summary during the interview
  4. Ask: "Is this still the right question to build the grant around?"

If no ideation files exist: the interview questions cover everything needed.

Funder knowledge base

Budget figures, page limits, and scheme names are approximate typical values as of 2024โ€“2025. Verify against the current call document or funder website before advising a user โ€” requirements change each cycle.

NIH (USA)

  • Mechanisms: R01 (5 yr, $500K DC/yr), R21 (2 yr, $275K total), R03 (2 yr, $50K/yr), K awards (career development), U01 (cooperative agreement)
  • Key sections: Specific Aims (1 page โ€” the most critical), Research Strategy (12p for R01: Significance, Innovation, Approach), Human Subjects, Authentication of Resources, Bibliography
  • Review criteria (scored 1โ€“9, lower = better): Significance (gap and impact), Investigators (team track record), Innovation (conceptual or methodological novelty), Approach (rigor, feasibility, power analysis), Environment (facilities, collaborations)
  • Common weaknesses cited by study sections: insufficient power analysis, vague alternatives for failed aims, overambitious scope, lack of preliminary data, budget not justified
  • Register on: NIH eRA Commons; submit via Grants.gov or ASSIST

ERC (EU)

  • Mechanisms: Starting Grant (โ‰ค7 yr post-PhD, โ‚ฌ1.5M), Consolidator (7โ€“12 yr post-PhD, โ‚ฌ2M), Advanced Grant (established PIs, โ‚ฌ2.5M), Synergy Grant (2โ€“4 PIs, โ‚ฌ10M)
  • Key sections: B1 Extended Synopsis (5p), B2 Full Proposal (Part B1 + B2 up to 15p for StG; 50p for AdG)
  • Review criteria: Scientific excellence (primary), Impact (to science and society), Quality and efficiency of implementation (team, resources, management)
  • Common weaknesses: proposal not ambitious enough for ERC standards, host institution not sufficiently described, no clear "frontier research" framing
  • Note: ERC funds PI-driven curiosity research, not translational or applied work โ€” frame accordingly

Wellcome Trust (UK)

  • Mechanisms: Discovery Award (ยฃ3โ€“5M, 5 yr), Investigator Award (ยฃ1โ€“3M, 5 yr), Sir Henry Wellcome (4 yr postdoc award), Collaborative Award
  • Key sections: Flexible โ€” Wellcome provides a template; typically Summary, Scientific rationale, Approach, Impact, Team, Budget
  • Review criteria: Scientific opportunity (is this the right question?), Team (can they deliver?), Delivery (is the plan achievable?)
  • Note: Wellcome values interdisciplinary approaches and expects explicit attention to open science (data sharing, preregistration)

MRC (UK)

  • Mechanisms: Programme Grant, Project Grant, Clinician Scientist Fellowship, Senior Research Fellowship
  • Key sections: Case for Support (20p), Justification of Resources
  • Review criteria: Importance (scientific and health impact), Quality and originality, Investigator capability, Resources

GAฤŒR (Czech Republic)

  • Mechanisms: Standard Project (3 yr, ~5M CZK/yr), Junior Star (5 yr, ~9M CZK/yr), EXPRO excellence (5 yr, ~10M CZK/yr), International bilateral projects
  • Key sections: Project summary (Czech + English, 600 words), State of the art, Objectives and hypotheses, Methodology, Feasibility, Budget justification, Timeline
  • Review criteria: Originality and scientific quality, Feasibility, Team qualification, Budget adequacy
  • Note: Czech-language applications required for domestic funding; international projects use English

DFG (Germany)

  • Mechanisms: Research Grants (Emmy Noether, Heisenberg, SPP priority programs, Collaborative Research Centres / SFB)
  • Key sections: Work programme (10โ€“15p), Preliminary work, Requested funds, Curriculum vitae (tabular, max 2p)
  • Review criteria: Scientific quality, Originality, Feasibility, Training of junior researchers

Horizon Europe (EU)

  • Mechanisms: EIC Pathfinder (โ‚ฌ3M, 4 yr), EIC Transition, EIC Accelerator (SMEs), MSCA Fellowships, ERC (separate)
  • Key sections: Excellence (concept, methodology), Impact (strategy, pathways to impact), Implementation (timeline, resources, team)
  • Review criteria: Excellence (novelty, scientific quality), Impact (significance, dissemination), Implementation (coherence, resources)

Neuroscience-specific grant writing tactics

Power analysis

  • Always include a formal power analysis, even if approximate
  • For EEG/ERP: reference pilot data or published effect sizes (Cohen's d for amplitude differences; cite the source)
  • For fMRI: cite comparable studies for BOLD effect sizes; state voxel-wise threshold + cluster correction
  • For behavioural measures: G*Power output with exact parameters (ฮฑ, 1-ฮฒ, effect size, allocation ratio)
  • Reviewers from biostatistics panels will look for this โ€” a missing power analysis is a common scoring weakness

Preprocessing and analysis plan

  • Name the software pipeline explicitly (MNE-Python, EEGLAB, SPM12, FSL, Brainstorm, ERPLAB)
  • State: sampling rate, bandpass filter cutoffs, epoch window, artifact rejection method (ICA, threshold)
  • For fMRI: TR, slice timing, HRF model, motion scrubbing threshold
  • Reference BIDS compliance if relevant

Participant recruitment

  • State inclusion/exclusion criteria precisely
  • Address any vulnerable populations explicitly (IRB / ethics committee considerations)
  • If EEG: mention net type, cap system, electrode count
  • Provide realistic recruitment numbers with dropout correction (plan for 20% attrition minimum)

Preliminary data

  • Show it early โ€” link pilot data to feasibility
  • If no preliminary data exists: substitute published proof-of-concept studies with your team's commentary
  • Use figures โ€” a single figure showing pilot ERP or BOLD effect is worth 200 words

Budget granularity

  • Break personnel costs to FTE fractions (PI 20%, postdoc 100%, RA 50%, etc.)
  • List equipment by model number and price if >$5K items
  • Consumables: EEG gel/electrode replacement, MRI contrast agents, participant payment
  • Travel: conference attendance, site visits (justify each)
  • Indirect costs: confirm the correct rate for your institution

Review criteria alignment checklist

For each major funder, map every section of the proposal to the review criterion it addresses:

Section NIH criterion ERC criterion Wellcome criterion
Specific Aims Significance + Innovation Scientific excellence Scientific opportunity
Background Significance Scientific excellence Scientific opportunity
Innovation Innovation Scientific excellence โ€”
Approach Approach + Environment Quality of implementation Delivery
Team Investigators Quality of implementation Team
Budget โ€” Quality of implementation Delivery
Preliminary data Approach Scientific excellence Delivery

Use this mapping to ensure reviewer criteria are explicitly addressed in the text โ€” never assume reviewers will infer alignment.

Common fatal weaknesses (avoid these)

  1. Overambitious scope โ€” three aims that cannot be done in the funded period
  2. No power analysis โ€” instant credibility loss with quantitative reviewers
  3. Vague alternatives โ€” "if Aim 1 fails, we will modify our approach" is not acceptable
  4. Hypothesis-free Approach โ€” methods with no testable prediction attached
  5. Budget not justified โ€” line items without rationale
  6. Ignoring funder priorities โ€” NIH wants disease relevance; ERC wants frontier science; these are different framings
  7. Insufficient preliminary data โ€” especially for NIH R01; reviewers score feasibility based on prior work
  8. Poor Specific Aims page โ€” the single most influential page in a US grant; if reviewers are not sold after 1 page, scores suffer

Workflow integration

Reads from

  • .neuroflow/ideation/ โ€” research question, literature, study design drafts
  • .neuroflow/project_config.md โ€” team, institution, phase, modality
  • .neuroflow/objectives.md โ€” project objectives cornerstones (re-read before every section)
  • .neuroflow/grant-proposal/flow.md โ€” prior grant context if resuming
  • Previous grant documents (provided by user) โ€” for inspiration map

Writes to

  • .neuroflow/objectives.md โ€” written/updated after interview confirms objectives
  • .neuroflow/grant-proposal/interview-[funder]-[date].md โ€” interview transcript
  • .neuroflow/grant-proposal/inspiration-map-[date].md โ€” cross-reference table (if previous grants provided)
  • .neuroflow/grant-proposal/panels/panel-analysis-[funder]-[date].md โ€” panel profiles (if panel research done)
  • .neuroflow/grant-proposal/draft-[funder]-[date]-[section].md โ€” per-section drafts
  • .neuroflow/grant-proposal/grant-[funder]-[date].md โ€” full consolidated draft
  • .neuroflow/grant-proposal/flow.md โ€” funder, scheme, deadline, section status
  • .neuroflow/sessions/YYYY-MM-DD.md โ€” session log (using ## milestone headers)
  • project_config.md โ€” funder and deadline (with user confirmation)

Connects to

  • /ideation โ€” if no research question exists, redirect the user there first
  • /experiment โ€” paradigm details flow into the Approach section
  • /preregistration โ€” registered analysis plan can be referenced in the Approach
  • /write-report โ€” funder progress reports use the same structure

Output format standard

Each drafted section is presented as a standalone block:

## [Section name]  ([page limit] page / [word limit] words)

[Drafted content]

---
Word count: NNN / NNN limit    โœ… within limit  /  โš ๏ธ over by NNN words

After each section, offer: - "revise" โ€” rework the current section - "next" โ€” proceed to the next section - "expand [topic]" โ€” add depth to a specific part of the current section - "save" โ€” write current section to the draft file - "checklist" โ€” run the quality checklist against the current section

Relevant skills

  • neuroflow:neuroflow-core โ€” lifecycle and .neuroflow/ write rules (read first)
  • neuroflow:phase-ideation โ€” if user needs to define the research question first
  • neuroflow:phase-experiment โ€” paradigm design details for the Approach section
  • neuroflow:phase-preregistration โ€” link registered analysis plan
  • neuroflow:humanizer โ€” apply to every drafted section to strip AI signatures, fix rhythm, and calibrate register so the prose reads as genuinely human-authored
  • sequentialthinking MCP โ€” invoke before drafting Innovation and Approach sections to build a rigorous logical argument chain

Slash command

/neuroflow:grant-proposal โ€” runs this workflow as a slash command.